"Medieval philosophers were right. Man is the center of the universe. We stand in the middle of infinity, between outer and inner spaces. And there's no limit to either."

High-concept science fiction and fantasy films are more or less the norm these days, but in 1966, the large-scale, “A” picture type of treatment afforded Fantastic Voyage was pretty unusual. 20th Century Fox spent a lot of dough on this thing, and it shows. The movie’s premise is absurd, well beyond the realms of scientific plausibility, but at the same time, ingenious and wildly imaginative. Despite being over 40 years old, I think the film still stands up well, and I find the visual effects – state of the art for their day – quite impressive, despite their dated nature. And mainly, Fantastic Voyage is just fun, plain and simple.

Stephen Boyd

The movie opens with secret agent Grant (Stephen Boyd) disembarking from a plane in the U.S., handing off Benes, a defecting scientist, to a waiting government escort. Thinking his work done, Grant heads off for some much needed R & R, but he’s barely loosened his tie before he’s swept away to a secret underground installation named CMDF (Combined Miniature Defense Forces) and “volunteered” for a desperate mission. Seem Benes was injured in an attack by assailants from “the other side” (read: the Soviet Bloc) and as a result, suffered a concussion and a blood clot in his brain. The information he holds in his mind is vital to U.S. interests, and there's only one way to save his life - to operate from the inside. General Carter (Edmund O’Brien) briefs Boyd on the plan: he’s to join a small team of scientists who will crew a specially-designed atomic submarine called the Proteus. The kicker: the Proteus will be shrunk to microscopic size and injected into the comatose man’s bloodstream. Grant and his team must pilot the sub through the man’s blood vessels and make their way up into his brain, where they will use a laser rifle to clear the blood clot and save his life.

Grant is understandably incredulous at the idea, but the General is true to his word: the technology does exist. (Grant: "Wait a minute. They can't shrink me." General: "Our miniaturizer can shrink anything." Grant: "I don't want to be miniaturized!") Boyd soon meets the other members of the Proteus’ crew: naval pilot and designer of the sub, Capt. Bill Owens (William Redfield); Dr. Michaels (Donald Pleasence), nominal leader of the team; Dr. Duval (Arthur Kennedy), top neurosurgeon in the country; and his assistant, Cora Peterson (Raquel Welch). At first, Grant feels the odd man out in this group, but will soon find his experience at troubleshooting, thinking "outside the box" and general resourcefulness - gained by years in the espionage game - invaluable.

Then the mission begins. Once shrunken, the team have only 60 minutes to complete their assignment before they, and the sub, will begin to revert to their usual size. Along the way, they’ll encounter many wonders and even more dangers – including an enemy agent in their midst, eager to sabotage the mission…

Richard Fleisher was no stranger to big-budget effects-heavy films, having directed 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea at Disney back in 1954, but Fantastic Voyage was in a whole other realm. According to Jeff Bond’s commentary, Fleischer didn’t particularly enjoy the making of Voyage, with its cramped sub sets and myriad difficult, fiddly effects shots. Luckily, he had a slew of skilled technicians working hard to bring the inner world of the human body to life.

Jack Martin Smith and Dale Hennesy created the many amazing sets - both miniature and large scale - depicting the heart, lungs, brain and other internal organs used in the film. Harper Goff (who earlier designed the Nautilus for Disney) designed the Proteus. An instantly iconic ship design, the Proteus cost $100,000 to build, was 42 feet long, made of fiberglass, and weighed approximately 8,000 pounds. Not only was the exterior of the sub built, but the interior was also a practical set, nicely futuristic-looking and with many large windows to allow for blue-screen backgrounds to be projected behind the actors. L.P. Abbott, Art Cruickshank and Emil Kosa, Jr. were responsible for the various practical special effects techniques used to realize this mysterious inner world, and won an Oscar for their efforts.

Arthur Kennedy and Donald Pleasence

William Redfield as the Proteus' captain

All these massive sets and clever effects really lend a scope and magisterial weight to the film that CGI just wouldn't pull off as well. Of course, not all of the effects stand up today. Some of the wire-work (credited to Peter Foy) to simulate the crew “swimming” outside the sub is a little sloppy, with the wires occasional clearly visible despite the filmmakers’ best efforts to conceal them. Some of the close-up shots of the sub, cast visible inside as it moves and turns, now look a little dodgy, due to the prop's unstable movement and the supreme difficulty at that time of cleanly matting in the blue screen background shots. But in general, the film is a true visual feast. Many of the long shots of the Proteus traveling through various parts of the body are lavish, full of at times surreal color, and achieve a weird beauty.

Fleisher also was graced with a first-rate cast. Irish-born Stephen Boyd makes a fine, stalwart hero. With his deep, resonant voice, height and rough good looks, Boyd seemsdestined to have been a big star, but sadly, it didn’t work out that way. After a handful of meaty parts in prestige pictures like Ben-Hur and The Oscar, his career seemed to peter out, and he died of a heart attack at the too-young age of 45. Judging by his work in Fantastic Voyage, he may have made a decent James Bond. 1966 was a watershed year for Raquel Welch. Fantastic Voyage was the second of a one-two punch of star-making films for her that year. Voyage came out shortly after Welch donned her famous fun bikini in Hammer’s One Million Years, B.C. Even though her character is initially presented as a skilled medical professional, Welch isn’t given much to work with in the script, and the main impression one walks away with after the credits roll is her statuesque form, encased in a tight-fitting white wetsuit. She’s quite a sight to behold, and emerges as perhaps the film’s most memorable “visual effect.”

A young James Brolin and Edmund O'Brien

The supporting cast of Voyage is especially strong. Arthur Kennedy, so adept at playing the cynical, world weary sort, is cast against type as a man of deep religious conviction who also happens to be a surgeon. Donald Pleasence expertly alternates between cool, collected man of science and twitchy nervousness. The dialogue is sometimes reverential to a fault, but that does give the film a nice sense of wonder. A little more dry humor wouldn't have gone amiss, although old pros O'Brien and Arthur O'Connell squeak a few wry lines in as they fret about in the lab. (There’s a cute little running gag about O’Brien’s failure to cut down on sugar in his coffee during this high-stress operation.)

The screenplay is by Harvey Kleiner, adapted by David Duncan from a short story by Otto Klement and Jerome Bixby. The writers do a good job making their goofy premise credible, with lots of medical jargon and a serious, clinical approach. Everyone involved tries their best to add a semblance of factual reality to the fantastical proceedings.The premise is laid out clearly in the film's opening, and once the Proteus enters Benes' body and the mission begins, events play out more or less in "real" time - a clever touch that builds up considerable tension.Interestingly, it isn’t until this point, when the mission beings (approximately the 37 minute mark), that Leonard Rosenman’s unique, complex score kicks in. He creates an eerie, atonal soundscape that nicely complements the far-out visual designs.

Fantastic Voyage was shown often and to great success on television, and produced some interesting spin-offs. Famed SF author and polymath Isaac Asimov tackled the novelization, and tried his damnedest to make the story a little more scientifically believable. There was also a Saturday morning cartoon series under the same name. Decades later, Joe Dante did a modern, comedic twist on the story with his film Innerspace, starring Dennis Quaid and Martin Short. Far funnier was a The Simpsons’ "Treehouse of Terror" spoof, wherein the Simpson family embark on a similar mission (with Marge filling out a tight white wetsuit just like Raquel Welch) inside Mr. Burn’s body to rescue the accidentally-swallowed Maggie. Despite its wonky science, Fantastic Voyage remains a suspenseful, fun film, very audacious for its day. Visual effects-wise, this must have been the Avatar of the 60s, really wowing audiences and giving them something they had never seen before. It must surely be regarded as one of the biggest F/X spectacles made up to that time (soon to be surpassed by Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odysseya few years later). My advice: don't sweat the scientific loopholes...park the practical part of your brain at the door, settle back and let yourself be swept away on a unique, visually-stunning sci-fi adventure into “inner” space.

DVD Note: Fantastic Voyage received a nice special edition DVD in 2007, complete with a short feature on the film's special effects, a full-length commentary with Jeff Bond, and a second commentary/isolated score track (with Bond, Nick Redman and Jon Burlingame talking about the score and film for the first 37 minutes before Rosenman's music begins), among other goodies. It'll do fine, until a shiny new Blu-Ray transfer comes along.

When I first saw this movie I was enthralled. It was one of the most amazing sci-fi flicks I'd ever seen as a kid. I remember this as being one of the first movies my Dad took us to at a drive-in theater. Then I saw it again as a teen when it was on TV as part of "ABC's 4:30 movie". But not seen it since.

That screenshot of Raquel (best visual effect indeed!) inside the Proteus with all the crew trying to remove the lymphocytes from her suit makes me think of a huge flaw in the story. Why wasn't the ship attacked by white blood cells the moment it entered Benes' body? Was that ever addressed in the story? Can't rmember. I read the novelization as a kid but I don't remember a thing about it. I have a paperback edition of it somewhere. I'll have to go digging for it and read the more scientific version accoridng to Asimov.

Terrific post! I loved Fantastic Voyage as a kid, and never failed to watch it when it came on TV. Great quote from the film, as well.

I enjoyed the little (pun unintended) scene in which someone thinks twice about crushing an ant with his finger -- nice analogy for the sub crew.

Reply

Jeff

2/2/2013 03:32:05

Thanks, Barry! Great to see you around these parts again!

The scene you mention is indeed a nice touch. Edmond O'Brien is about to add more sugar to his coffee and sees an ant crawling around some spilled sugar on the table. He goes to crush it, then thinks better of it.

Jeff

2/2/2013 03:29:58

Hi, John! That's great that you got to see FANTASTIC VOYAGE at the drive-in...no such luck for me.

As to why wasn't the Proteus attacked right away - good question. They do address this in the briefing near the beginning of the film. Apparently, the ship and crew are miniaturized to such a small microbe size that they will pass undetected by the bodies immune system. At the end, however, their 60 minute time limit is up and Arthur O'Connell warns them that as they start to increase in size, the body will start to attack them. I'm assuming this is what happens to the sub (it does appear as if it's dissolving in the embrace of the leukocyte).

I haven't read Asimov's novelization either but plan to grab a copy ASAP. Thanks for the comments!

Jeff, I enjoyed reading your review of "Fantastic Voyage" — don't think I have seen it. I find sf and fantasy movies highly entertaining no matter how "audacious" or beyond the "realms of scientific plausibility" they might be. The more bizarre the plot, the more fun it is. I can see why you found this a "suspenseful, fun film." It sounds like an early precursor to "Honey I Shrunk the Kids," though. It also reminds me of the animated film "Horton Hears A Who!" about microscopic people living inside a speck of dust. "Widely imaginative," I agree, but never impossible!

Reply

Jeff

2/2/2013 03:36:48

Greetings, Prashant! Thanks for your comment!

Doubtless FANTASTIC VOYAGE wasn't as ubiquitous on Indian TV as it was in the States; it was almost impossible to miss it when I was growing up in the 70s and 80s. You make a good point re: not worrying too much about the scientific plausibility of a science fiction movie. I cut older movies some slack in this regard, whereas I wouldn't be able to accept too much obvious nonsense in a modern film where the filmmakers (or their researchers) should know better. Your approach is the best one to take for getting maximum enjoyment out of these kinds of films. Hope you can check out VOYAGE someday - it has a nice sense of wonder often missing in more recent sci-fi efforts.

Jeff, TCM India, while they were in India until last year, would have telecast this film. I am hoping to catch it on YouTube that doesn't stream and buffer as much as it used to earlier. I have seen some fine movies already. There is a magical quality about older movies and more so if they are black and white. Some of the my friends are surprised when I tell them that my sense of wonder (to use your phrase) and fulfillment is much higher when I watch vintage cinema as opposed to some of the stuff dished out today. A case in point is "Rise of the Planet of the Apes" in the POTA series. I believe the film did well at the box office but I almost threw up watching Franco and his new-age primate. Ditto for "King Kong" though, I thought, Watts and Brody and the gorilla were okay in the newest version.

Reply

Jeff

2/3/2013 04:18:26

Prashant - I agree with you re: the "magical quality" of older movies. I like quite a few newer films (I thought RISE OF THE PLANET OF THE APES was pretty entertaining, for example) and don't really have a problem with CGI per se. But there's just something about seeing actual physical effects work, make-ups, sets, etc., that always seem more real to me. All those cheesy 50s sci-fi and horror flicks (which I love) may have had some bad effects, but the imagination and ingenuity on limited means their makers displayed is often impressive to me.

I take it from your remarks that TCM India discontinued their service? If so, that's a pity. I sure wish they'd get a TCM Japan going. I'm always envious of the various classic movie bloggers who have access to TCM on a regular basis. What a great channel that is.

I haven't seen this movie in years and while reading your terrific post I learnedly that I don't even own this film. I feel I have let me children down by not owning the highly entertaining film. Thanks for the write up and the inspiration to make a purchase.

Reply

Jeff

2/3/2013 04:19:50

Thanks a bunch, Paul! I think you'll be satisfied with the DVD, and I hope you enjoy watching it with your kids...they may even find it slightly educational!

Excellent Jeff. I loved this film when I first saw it as a kid and I think it still holds up well enough today. I guess not being especially scientific means that the inconsistencies don't really bother me.

A word on Stephen Boyd. It seems he was in the running to play Bond and I think he may have been able to pull if off successfully - he would have been a lot more convincing than any of the other names I've heard as alternatives.
I suppose he'll be forever remembered for BEN HUR, and that's not a bad legacy in itself. I always liked him, there weren't too many guys with a Northern Irish accent in leading roles when I was growing up so I always got a bit of a buzz when I heard someone who spoke like me on the screen.
As for his career not panning out as it perhaps should have, I think he made some poor choices when he was successful. However, he has some good roles in his filmography - Henry King's THE BRAVADOS was an excellent early part for him, as was THE MAN WHO NEVER WAS. Another movie that few people seem aware of, but shows Boyd off quite well is THE THIRD SECRET.

Reply

Jeff

2/3/2013 04:32:12

Cheers, Colin! Good to hear you like this film as well. I guess the old Hollywood adage applies here: never let plausibility get in the way of a good story.

And thanks for adding your perspective re: Stephen Boyd. He did some very good work in his career, didn't mean to disparage him in the slightest in my post, just to sort of lament the fact that he didn't get more chances to shine in his later career. I do like him in the well-cast but only so-so western SHALAKO. I completely forgot that he was in THE BRAVADOS (great flick!)

And of course, being mostly remembered for BEN-HUR ain't too shabby. That movie will continue to be watched for generations to come, and people will marvel at his excellent performance and wonder "who is that guy?" I guess that's a better legacy than many actors get.

I have never seen this movie, although I have seen the Short/Quaid tribute "Inner Space". After reading your review, I've decided this is a movie a person really ought to see because it is so famous and because it was the "Avatar" of its day.

Reply

Jeff

2/4/2013 19:15:52

Hi Ruth! Well, I'm not sure how famous VOYAGE is nowadays, but you should definitely see it for the fun factor. And since you've seen INNERSPACE you can see what Joe Dante was riffing on when he made that movie.

Great review once again Jeff! I've only seen Stephen Boyd as Messala in Ben Hur which was brilliant. Interesting this one has that actor who played Blofeld in the earlier Bond flicks too.

Reply

Jeff

2/4/2013 19:18:23

Thank you, Ruth! Yes, Donald Pleasence (who played Blofeld in YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE) is always good value and is perfect in his role in VOYAGE. I'm assuming you're not a big horror fan...Pleasence is probably most famous these days for playing Dr. Loomis in the first few HALLOWEEN movies.

Hi Jeff!
Loved your honest review of "Fantastic Voyage". I saw this film as a kid with my dad and I haven't seen it since. Of course as a kid I couldn't get past the awesome images of what we imagine space and cool gadgets to look like. (This was in the 70s though when this film was still out there for early CGI) I missed the wires etc so if I ever catch it, I'll be looking for that.

When you describe the plot with "the Proteus will be shrunk to microscopic size and injected into the comatose man’s bloodstream. Grant and his team must pilot the sub through the man’s blood vessels and make their way up into his brain, where they will use a laser rifle to clear the blood clot and save his life." Even now I had to laugh then said to myself "WHAT?" It's hilarious and so out there.

You've managed to capture just how great looking the film was with it's very cool special affects with your photos. It really does give you a feel for just how entertaining the film is once you get past just how out there the plot is.

Thanks for bringing this film into the forefront again. I would love to watch it again with my dad just to see what he thinks of it now, given how CGI has changed.
Page

Reply

Jeff

2/4/2013 19:23:47

Thank you so much, Page! Glad to see you're a fan of this movie.

FANTASTIC VOYAGE does have a very wild, "out there" premise, for sure. If you can get past that, the rest of the movie's plot flows fairly logically and the writers even include a lot of factual medical information. Yes, kids can actually learn something from watching this popcorn flick. ;)

The wirework isn't too bad, really...they tried to paint them out where possible, but you can notice them occasionally if you're looking.

I hope that you and your dad enjoy this one when you get a chance to see it together. I think that's very cool that you guys enjoy watching movies together.

Loved your review! I recently recorded this and lent it to my dad, who thought it was wonderful, but I haven't watched it myself yet! Since I just saw VOYAGE TO THE BOTTOM OF THE SEA this weekend I'm very interested in FANTASTIC VOYAGE which seems like it's in a similar vein. Your review has me very enthused to try it out -- the more so as I've really been enjoying working my way through Edmond O'Brien's films in recent months. Thanks for a great preview!

Best wishes,
Laura

Reply

Jeff

2/4/2013 19:29:28

Hi Laura! Thank you for the kind words!

I'll be interested to read your take on FANTASTIC VOYAGE (and Edmond O'Brien) when you get around to viewing it. I know you're not a real sci-fi fan but think you'll get a kick out of this one. VOYAGE TO THE BOTTOM OF THE SEA I believe was released on a double-feature DVD with VOYAGE some time ago; they do kind of fit together, a couple of big, colorful Fox productions. I think FANTASTIC VOYAGE is a better, less goofy film, though VTTBOTS is also plenty fun and boasts an impressive cast.

Great post Jeff - I haven't seen this one in years but as a kid it seemed to be on TV all the time. I remember the novelisation and even Asimov's sequel to it. I actually really like INNERSPACE though, really cracks me up - but then I'm a big Joe Dante fan.

Reply

Jeff

2/5/2013 22:35:39

Thanks, Sergio! I'm quite curious to check out Asimov's novelization, and I forgot that he also penned a sequel. I remember INNERSPACE rather fondly but it's been ages since I've seen it.

Jeff, I love your so very apt description of FANTASTIC VOYAGE as "just fun, plain and simple." For me, it's one of those films that has gotten better with age. I have a DVD with it on one side and the theatrical VOYAGE TO THE BOTTOM OF THE SEA on the other. Two great comfort movies!

Reply

Jeff

2/5/2013 22:39:36

Thanks, Rick! I agree that VOYAGE seems to improve with age. I wish I had that double-sided DVD with VOYAGE TO THE BOTTOM OF THE SEA...I haven't seen the VTTBOTS movie in quite a while and am curious to see how it holds up. I like a lot of post-80s sci-fi films, but it seems they are all uniformly dour and grey. I love the color and fun that characterizes much of 60s sci-fi.

Reply

Neil

2/12/2013 02:41:24

I think I first saw this on TV in the early 80s, and it still impressed with its attention to pseudo-science detail. Disney is best known for animated movies of course, but "20,000 Leagues under the Sea," "Tron," "The Black Hole" etc. show that Disney is well up for forays into more intellectual fantasy, and I'd rate them all highly. Sadly, last year's John Carter was a bust, but I hope Disney won't abandon its' attempts, despite the ~$80 million loss to the studio. I have fond memories of the "Adventure through Innerspace" attraction at Disneyland, though it closed in 1985.

Reply

Jeff

2/13/2013 23:39:30

Hey Neil! Yeah, usually when I hear that Disney is producing a sci-fi film, I get a little wary, although as you say, they've had a few successes in that field (20,000 LEAGUES..., TRON) as well as a few misses (THE BLACK HOLE).

I kind of liked JOHN CARTER, but it's hard to make a 100-year-old property like that and make it not seem derivative of countless other big budget sci-fi movies (which in reality were massively inspired by Burroughs in the first place).

Let's hope Disney doesn't totally screw up the STAR WARS franchise with all these new sequels and spin-offs in the works (somehow I doubt they will handle it as badly as Lucas did with the prequels.)

Reply

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.

Leave a Reply.

Videophilia!

Opinionated ramblings about new and old movies (mostly old, as that's the way I like 'em!)